Introduction to International Affairs week of 9/13
Introduction to International Affairs week of 9/13 INS3003
Popular in Introduction to International Affairs
verified elite notetaker
Popular in International Studies
This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jessica Ralph on Sunday September 18, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to INS3003 at Florida State University taught by Whitney Bendeck in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 133 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Affairs in International Studies at Florida State University.
Reviews for Introduction to International Affairs week of 9/13
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/18/16
September 13, 2016 Overview of lecture Key Points Realism & the Origins of Major Power Wars 1. WW1 a. Germany and the Security Dilemma b. Balance of power and Reasons for its Demise i. Power Transition ii. Russia and Preventative War 2. Interwar to WW2 a. Pyrrhic Victory b. Balance of Power? c. League of Nations i. Japan (Manchukuo) & Italy d. Appeasement e. Nazi Germany as a Revisionist State i. Mearsheimer’s viewpoint 3. Cold War Erupts a. Division of Post-War Europe b. East-Central Europe = Soviet Satellites c. Marshall Plan d. NATO (1949) Warsaw Pact (1955) e. Bi-Polar world = Balance of Power Prisoners Dilemma 2 prisoners arrested, they have to decide if they will confess the other did the crime so they can be free Outcomes o Prisoner A and Prisoner B don’t talk = both get 1 year o Prisoner A does not confess Prisoner B = B gets parole, A gets life in jail Best choice for B o Prisoner A confesses and Prisoner B does not = A gets parole B gets life Best choice for A o Both confess = both get 20 years Each prisoner is assuming this is likely, avoid worst outcome of life in jail Used as part of game theory to help us break down the thought process that states will go through to understand their decision making Realist standpoint on PD o No communication between the 2 prisoners o Play as a “one chance” game You have to make the right decision the first time Instantaneous consequences for states actions During cold war, politicians used this mindset when thinking if we should arm with nuclear weapons o If we disarm and the USSR disarms = minimal consequences We do not trust the USSR will disarm USSR doesn’t disarm because they don’t trust US will disarm o Avoided worst outcome of nuclear war because neither acted with weaponry World War I The Set Up Started due to mix of events o Not assassination of Ferdinand Easy singular event to blame o Unification of Germany Went from 39 states to 1 Weak with 39 states o Otto von Bismarck Practitioner of realpolitik New German empire would be very strong under him Started negotiating alliances to help secure new German empire o More tension (realists don’t trust states, didn’t know what they wanted or what they would do) o Increases security dilemma o Outsiders felt they had 2 choices to ensure Germany wouldn’t harm others 1. Stop the growth Went into play after WWI clearly didn’t work 2. Befriend them Went into play after WWII Power transition o Realists believe this is the best time for war o Don’t see this as something that tends to happen peacefully o Power transition taking place as Germany is surpassing Britain Declining power may act aggressively as they try to maintain their position Rising power may act aggressively so they can prove they are powerful o Balance of power is the best way to avoid war, so why did WWI erupt? Realism says even with BOP, things can go wrong o Russia on the rise The War Major alliances o Triple entente Britain, France, Russia US joins later o Central powers Germany, Austria, Hungary Italy in the start, switches over throughout Death toll ~ 15 million 4 European empires fell with the war o Ottoman, German, Russian, Hungarian Ends with Treaty of Versailles Post-War Victors o Pyrrhic Victory: the victory wasn’t worth winning More is lost than gained Come out weaker Great Britain, France and US lost a generation of men Most of war was fought in France devastation of the country No balance of power in Europe o Great Britain often seen as major power but there was no way they could maintain peace Psychological harm War revolt TS Elliott’s “Wasteland” o Multi-polar Europe League of Nations and Inter-War period Did not mesh with state behavior Created by Wilson, not passed by Congress US never joined Tried to bring about collective security, peace through cooperation Had no way of enforcing cooperation o No military Member states would have had to provide and no one was strong enough Could only enforce sanctions o No way of making powers stay in league Failed at maintaining the peace o Japan in 1931 – increasing its imperial possessions and moves into Manchuria (Chinese territory) Manchukuo First time the league was tested and failed Japan member with veto power and left the league o Italy in 1935- invades Ethiopia Ethiopia appealed to the LoN Italy member of LoN LoN issued token sanctions Sanctions that wouldn’t hurt Italy Nazis had already overcome Germany and fascism was strong in Italy—LoN was scared to aggressively treat Italy Lost Rhineland Frances buffer During this time and power struggle within the LoN, Germany violated Treaty of Versailles and openly rearmed Concerns for Germany were growing and the LoN failed to stop their growth WWII o Realists blame that there was no BOP No one blames the LoN because no one thought it would work o States will act in their own individual interests Japan, Germany, Italy Liberals believed it could work, so they place blame on LoN o Institution itself was flawed, not the idea Major flaw: US didn’t join Mearshimer’s assumptions on States from a Realist Viewpoint 1. 2. 3. States can never be certain of each other’s assumptions 4. Survival is primary goal 5. States are rational actors, calculating how to ensure their survival Powerful incentives for great powers to think and act offensively with regard to each other o Great powers fear each other o Function according to self-help Shouldn’t e surprised that Germany, in an inter-war period, acted aggressively No one was in the system that could stop Germany from becoming a hegemon o No potential hegemon wants “friends” alienates potential hegemons from other countries Cold War o Rise of the Cold War ~ 75 mil. People died in WWII (BENDECK DID NOT LECTURE ON THE ACTUAL HAPPENINGS OF THE WAT) After WWI we tried to weaken Germany what should we do now? o Divided up between the 4 allied powers “cold” war because we had a balanced power no fire Marshall Plan (1948): offering economic aid to the states of Europe, linking the 3 allied zones together o British, American and French merged into 1 economic unit o USSR threatened by this because they didn’t know what the intentions were Blockaded Berlin Berlin Air Lift o 1949 official split in Germany between the East and West September 15, 2016 Overview of lecture Realism and the Cold War 1. Nature of the Cold War a. Suez Canal Crisis i. Nasser ii. Suez War (1956) iii. Lessons We Can Learn b. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) 2. Cold War Deterrence a. Weighing the Risks b. Conventional vs. Nuclear Weapons c. Impact of Nuclear Deterrence d. Nuclear Power and a Peaceful End to the Cold War 3. Ending the Cold War a. Decline of Soviet Military Power, Influence and Economy b. East-Central Europe c. The Fall 4. Will We Miss the Cold War? Cold War Very genuine concern of nuclear war o Nuclear attack drills in schools Proxy wars: wars on the periphery o Common during cold war o Vietnam war USSR “Victory” War between 2 nuclear powers is unwinnable o Rational power would not engage because they would see the calculated risk o Nuclear weapons have far-reaching effects Larger impact, greater devastation Power of deterrence Less big territorial land grabs Spread of communism increased USSR power Role of Egypt Little states can play a huge pivotal role Suez Canal important for flow of goods Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt in 1956 o Primary concern: Egyptian security o Both poles in CW were trying to buy over Nasser for control of the canal Played both sides Aswan High Dam project o Recognized communist China escalated tensions with US US recognized Nasser was playing them, pulled economic support July 1956 Nasser nationalized the canal o Britain lost control of very important area o Israel concerned because Egypt is strengthening and aligning with Syria and Jordan October 1956 Israeli army moves and occupies Sinai peninsula o French and Brits send in troops to occupy canal zone o US encouraged all 3 powers to stop, OPEC sanctions against Israel, OPEC oil embargo against Brit and France Why? Risk of USSR threatening Brit and France with attack cold war hot war If the USSR attacks an US ally in Europe, US promised to get involved “if you attack one of our allies in Europe, it’s the same thing as attacking us” Eisenhower said we would hit them with “everything we have” nuclear war Both sides understand that a nuclear war was not what anyone wanted, so threats were taken seriously Cuban Missile Crisis 90 miles off coast of Florida USSR seeking to “nuclearize” Cuba Security dilemma for US Geography crucial End result: both sides end up backing down o USSR backs down first after US ultimatum If USSR doesn’t dismantle, US engages in war o Ensured an exit strategy so that USSR could back down Both countries worked to maintain BOP to avoid nuclear war Realists focus on importance of deterrence in conflict o Countries will only engage in war if they feel they can win war Ending the Cold War Soviet system comes crashing down o China pulls out of USSR alliance o Cuba was sucking money and could not hold weaponry USSR humiliated at the fail o USSR 10-year war with Afghanistan 1979 Had to walk away without a victory o Ronald Reagan re-energized the nuclear arms race USSR realizing they could not keep up with us o Easter European satellite states being supported by Moscow o USSR going broke Gorbachev rises to power o Implements political and economic reform o Encourages soviets to take more initiative fall of berlin wall He would not crack down on them like previous leaders o Malta conference Met with Bush Senior Negotiated the end of the war Gorbachev recognized the US would become the hegemon Peaceful end to war Realists say that ultimately the US possessed the advantage o Liberals say that the US and USSR leaders started meeting together and the more frequent conversation less of an enemy Mearschimer says we will miss the cold war o BOP with bi-polar configuration o Never had a hot war o Half a century of peace o Once we no longer have this equilibrium, powers were align against it